Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Kin Recognition by Phenotype Matching

Lacy, Robert C., Sherman, Paul W.·1983·The American Naturalist

Abstract

In this paper we developed models to explore possible mechanisms by which individuals could classify conspecifics as full siblings, half siblings, or nonrelatives, assuming that kinship is assessed by comparing phenotypes of conspecifics to a learned template. The hypothesized template is learned during interactions with one's parents or one's self. In general, phenotype matching based on fully heritable metric traits was more accurate than discriminations based on discretely varying traits (table 1). However, in the metric trait models recognition errors rapidly increased if random environmental factors influenced the observed variation. Reliable discrimination of kinship based on discrete traits required either a large number of variants (alleles per locus), or the assessment of many traits (independently assorting loci). For a fixed total number of alleles, over all recognition loci, minimum error was obtained with three to five alleles per locus. Discrimination between full siblings and either half sibs or nonrelatives based on comparisons to one's self was less accurate when completely dominant traits were assessed than when there was codominant expression of the alleles. However, dominance increased the accuracy of discrimination between half sibs and non-relatives based on trait matching to one's self. Dominance also increased the accuracy of discrimination among all three categories of relatives when phenotype comparisons were made to one's parents. Phenotype matching to one's self allows discrimination of full sibs from nonrelatives with no more, and often less, error than does comparison to either parent. The best source of information for discriminating half sibs from either full sibs or nonrelatives is often the individual that is a parent of only one of the two kin classes being differentiated. Many attributes, metric or discrete, may not possess the variation necessary for reliable recognition of kin. However, selection might favor increased genetically determined variation in those characters specifically involved in phenotype matching.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/284078

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Lacy, R. C., & Sherman, P. W.
Venue
The American Naturalist
Published
1983-04
Volume
121
Issue
4
Pages
489-512
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
OpenAlex
W2033134707
Cited by
287
References
1
FWCI
20.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Kin Recognition by Phenotype Matching. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/284078
The paper
Lacy, R. C., & Sherman, P. W. (1983). Kin Recognition by Phenotype Matching. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/284078

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.